Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for AY 2012-13, but with a delay of 162 days. This delay was attributed to the severe health issues of the appellant's Director, stemming from a 1993 injury and subsequent prolonged medical treatments, which also caused significant mental stress. Furthermore, the assessee's prior appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as the appellant was not informed of the procedural migration to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and the shift to electronic notices, leading to a failure to respond.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days, finding sufficient and bona fide cause due to the Director's health condition. It also ruled that the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal of the appeal was erroneous because the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to present its case due to lack of awareness about the procedural changes. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 162-day delay in filing the appeal, and whether the ex parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was valid when the assessee was not adequately informed about the migration to NFAC and electronic notices.
Sections Cited
143(3), 11
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the quantum assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012–13.
2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed with a delay of 162 days. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit sworn by the Director of the appellant academy, narrating the reasons for the delay, which are extracted hereinbelow verbatim: “1. I Ramchandra Tarkeshwar Singh (Director of B.P. MARINE ACADEMY) (aged 72 years) was employed in merchant navy. While being in service, I was injured while on board ship on 27/05/1993 wherein the ship was struck by a large wave and as a result I was knocked over sustaining injuries to my right arm, neck, left leg and chest. I was rescued by helicopter and admitted to a hospital in Durban South Africa on 27/05/1993. The medical report of Mr. Robert K. Fraser (Orthopaedic Surgeon) is attached at pg. no. 4 to 6.
I had sensory loss and paralysis in the right upper extremity mainly involving injury to the right C5 and C6 roots of the brachial plexus. I was treated for skin grafting for the lacerated wound on the left leg and swollen left knee. Further, X-rays of the cervical spine revealed a fracture of the transverse process of the C7 on the right. Also, the X-rays revealed fractures of the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th rib on the left side. The medical report of Dr. P.S. Ramani is attached at pg. no. 7 to 8.
3. Even after being treated at the hospital at Durban and being discharged from there I was advised to undergo physiotherapy for a number of sessions. However, the impact of the accident was so severe that over the years I have been battling a very severe and serious health condition. In the year 2011 when I had an MRI of my cervical spine and brachial plexus done, it revealed that I was suffering from traumatic brachial plexus injury. The MRI Report of Cervical Spine and Brachial Plexus from Piramal Diagnostics is attached at pg. no. 9 to 10.
In the year 2015, I went USA with an expectation that things will get improved. Accordingly, I got admitted into Johns Hopkins Hospital where I had undergone a spine surgery. Neurosurgery discharge worksheet from Johns Hopkins Hospital is attached at pg. no. 11 to 18.
Even after undergoing the aforesaid spine surgery, things did not improve. On 22nd January, 2016 I once again underwent an MRI wherein it revealed that the brachial plexus injury/condition still persisted. The MRI Report from Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre is attached at pg. no. 19 to 20. Further, Out Patient Assessment Sheet from Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre is also attached at pg. no. 21 to 22.
As can be seen from the above, the injury in 1993 has caused a prolonged impact on my health and in spite of undergoing various treatments, my condition has not improved to a good extent.
7. As a result, my physical and mental wellness has been greatly affected over the years.
Further, the order passed by CIT(A) dismissing the appeal further added on to my mental stress as I was shocked to learn that in spite of making due compliances to the physical notices which were issued during the First Appellate Proceedings and that there being favorable orders in the appellant's own case upholding its claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act in the preceding years, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal.
Due to the above, during the intervening period, I could not pay attention to my regular affairs including the pending appeal which was required to be filed. Thus, there is a delay of 160 days in filing the appeal.
In light of the aforesaid detailed averments and supporting medical documents submitted, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide and reasonable causes, and the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the delay of 162 days is hereby condoned.
4. Turning to the merits, it is stated that the assessee had filed its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) pursuant to the assessment order dated 29/04/2015. Initially, the appellate proceedings were conducted through physical hearings, and the assessee had duly submitted all relevant documents and written submissions. However, no order was passed for an extended period, and in the meantime, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The appellant was not aware of the procedural shift and the likelihood of electronic notices being issued via email or the ITBA portal. Consequently, no further notices were responded to, and the appeal was dismissed ex parte without examining the merits or the submissions already placed on record.
5. Considering the peculiar facts and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee ought to have been provided an effective opportunity to present its case. The dismissal of the appeal without consideration of the submissions filed earlier and without affording such opportunity vitiates the appellate proceedings.
6. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st July, 2025.